David Cameron ?

[Uh_huh_him]

if we assume as you pointed out correctly earlier that wealth is unspent accumulated income, then tax cuts do not benefit them. taxes are either income or consumption, so wealth is unaffected positivly or negatively (exception for inheritance).

Really? You think people who have accumulated unspent wealth have no annual income? Are in eligible for tax and do not benefit from reduction in tax rates?

I think you may only be considering a very narrow view of the wealthy. Potentially people who have low outgoings and a comfortable nest egg could be in this group. However there is also a group of people who have significant incomes and a surplus of accumulated wealth. Those in the top rate of tax. Who regularly are considered for a considerable drop in tax rates.

 

[beorhthelm]

Really? You think people who have accumulated unspent wealth have no annual income? Are in eligible for tax and do not benefit from reduction in tax rates?

I think you may only be considering a very narrow view of the wealthy.

you made the qualification, not me. and you are technically quite right about what "wealth" means. of course in typical politicking you mean wealthy to be any one who earns more than what we think isnt wealthy - its rather relative. 30% of the population dont see the Tories as only helping benefiting "the wealthy", or they are themselves wealthy. which makes wealthy pretty common it would seem.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

you made the qualification, not me. and you are technically quite right about what "wealth" means. of course in typical politicking you mean wealthy to be any one who earns more than what we think isnt wealthy - its rather relative. 30% of the population dont see the Tories as only helping benefiting "the wealthy", or they are themselves wealthy. which makes wealthy pretty common it would seem.

Sorry but I genuinely don't understand what you are saying here.
You may have a point. I just don't follow your logic or conclusion.

I think you are saying that 30% of the population think that Tories will benefit them even though they themselves are not wealthy.
Is that it?

 

[beorhthelm]

in very round about way, yes. really im just putting down another daft old political cliche.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

in very round about way, yes. really im just putting down another daft old political cliche.

Fair enough. I think we probably have some common ground.

I find that too much of politics is based around very simplistic views.
The economy gets portrayed as something that resembles the monthly budget of a household.
Spending on services is bad and Austerity is good.
The public sector is wasting money and the private sector is uniformly well managed and efficient.

Equally the left wing view on this is too simplistic too.
I just happen to find their ideology more in tune with my core beliefs of what is the right thing to do for the people in our country.

 

[maltaseagull]

Really? You think people who have accumulated unspent wealth have no annual income? Are in eligible for tax and do not benefit from reduction in tax rates?

I think you may only be considering a very narrow view of the wealthy. Potentially people who have low outgoings and a comfortable nest egg could be in this group. However there is also a group of people who have significant incomes and a surplus of accumulated wealth. Those in the top rate of tax. Who regularly are considered for a considerable drop in tax rates.

Fact: New figures published by HMRC show that the proportion of the nation's tax bill paid by the richest has risen under the Coalition.

Britain's highest earners pay more than a quarter of the country’s entire income tax bill, more than when the Coalition came to power.

Nearly 300,000 taxpayers are forecast to contribute the equivalent of £45.9  billion in income tax between them by the end of this year, equivalent to £150,000 each. The amount they have paid has risen from 25 per cent of the nation’s tax bill when Labour came to power to 27.3 per cent this year.